jakescreek

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About jakescreek

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Fields

  • Location
    tennessee
  1. I'll investigate court, thanks, Any other suggestions from others appreciated!
  2. This debt is his, dated in 2002. I've got a pretty tie reign on his spending and credit now, it was out of control and after the bankruptcy, I started working with him on his spending. He has paid only cash since 2002. About a year ago I started working with him to clean up his record (getting the his CRs, writing letters with him signing them, etc.). No co-mingling of account has occured in the past or the present.
  3. Thanks in advance for the advice, I'll keep this brief: My father and I share the same name. He declared bankruptcy in 2002 and within the last six months one of his debts showed up on my credit report. At the time of the bankruptcy, I shared an address with him and since bankrupcies are address specific, I can only assume (along with the fact we share names) that this was the reason for confusion. I contacted the Big 3 with documented evidence of my father's bankruptcy and my innocence. Equifax and TransUnion immediately deleted the line and added a statement to my file to not confuse my CR with my father's. Unfortunately, Experian has continued to report the error and responded by saying the item has been verified every time. I have written and called to complain about this to Experian with three certified letters and two phone calls. Documented evidence of the mix-up has been provided to the Experian in the certified letters. My last certified letter included a "threat to sue" with the local court paperwork filled out. In my last contact (phone), I requested MOV. Thier response, that I recieved today was "verified, contact the OC". I have also written the OR three certified letters and they have never responded. In addition, I recently requested a credit line increase from American Express. They turned me down and included in the decline letter that it was based on "my bankruptcy as reported by Experian". Should I now proceed to the courts? I have the evidence, the American Express credit increase decline letter, the time and understand the process. My credit is clean, this is the only mark on any report. I have deleted the old address from all my CRs and added a "Jr" to my name to avoid confusion of this type in the future. Thank you.
  4. I've easily removed old and recent lates from my CR with either a phone call (SAKS and DISCOVER) or with a goodwill letter (AMERICAN EXPRESS and DISCOVER). Dispute the lates with the CRA at the same time. I only had one problem removing lates (and I had over a dozen before I started cleaning up my record). I was turned down multiple times for the deletion of some very old lates (6 1/2 years) by Chase (Curcuit City actually). Believe me when I tell you, I tried everything from phone calls on the low end to letters to VPs at the high end, and I always got the same response ......"its against the law for us to change anything, yada, yada, yada." They finally wrote me and saying that they would no longer answer my letters requesting deletion. So I vowed to myself never to do business with them again due to their a-hole behavior. I doubt I'll effect their bottom line, but I feel better. Given that you have a good relationship with the student loan people, I'd say a simple call will do the trick. Emphasize that the lates are effecting your ability to get a auto loan, home loan, job, etc. and as a new working graduate you've got enought obstacles to deal with. Good luck
  5. Well, I was able to get them to delete the tradelines by just threating and including a filled out form. If I remember correctly I said: ".....if your firm does not act within 30 days I will be filing the attached lawsuit at the Monroe County Small Claims Court, Madisonville, Tennessee." The amount for the lawsuit was $2000 - Willfully reporting false information on CR and defamation. All the CRAs responded within two weeks and deleted the files. Of course I had included additional information with the letters that the credit lines were not mine. They would have lost in court had they pressed it. I saved $330 by using the threat rather than actually filing. Good Luck!
  6. I didn't actually sue a CRA but I've filled out the paperwork at my county small claims court and used it (with each of the individual CRAs) in threating letters to get negative tradelines removed. The filing cost (at my court house) is $110 but I didn't need to file of course, the letter with a copy of the lawsuit was enought. Just go down and get a copy of the form. Also, seeing as I live right now in a very rural area of Tennessee, it might have helped them decide based on the cost to travel and defend the suit (In addition, the fact that I go trout fishing with the judge would have helped me).
  7. Call the OC and find out the status of accounts you have or had with them. (You said that you don't believe this is your account, why not confirm it?) If the OC have no records and say you have no pd of or charged-off debt, write the CA a certifed letter in responce and state what the OC told you (get a name at the OC if you can). I'd also write the CA and state that they did not mean the legal standard of DV and that you demand records of anything that directly ties you to this debt - A signed application form, cancelled checks, a contact that you agreed to, etc.
  8. The account could be a mistake on their part, a confusion of names, addresses or SSs. (Less likely it's criminal intent.) It happen to me as well. That's why regularly checking your credit record for errors is in your best interest. Your job, and the purpose of this site, is to correct the problem. Follow the outline of this site and you'll be on your way. In a nutshell: Get your free CRAs, dispute everything negative. DV the CAs with certified letters. MOV the CRAs when you know all the facts. Use the threat of a lawsuit and the courts as last resort (and come well prepared if you get this far). And always keep good records well into the future. Whether the CA collects or how much they collect is your call from here on out. Without any info on these accounts your a mushroom in the dark being feed BS.
  9. Call the OC and ask for the records, if they have them check what was recorded when you settled this account 3 years ago, If they don't have them (most likely) find out which CA they were sent to, yielding the address,then DV the CA. At the same time MOV the CRAs. In the future, get everything in writing, send certified letters and keep good records long after your past debts have been "settled". Otherwise you'll be starting at ground zero every time.
  10. HIBLUES has is right, The last option (after everything else fails) of visiting the doctor's office is a nice touch, With your hat and your hand and non-agressive, I think he'd cave, Who wants an unhappy patient sitting in the waiting room, Yes it might be imbaressing for you, but he'll be more uncomfortable with you showing up at his place of business regardless of the reasons.
  11. I would DV the CA again, MOV the CRAs, In future, get everything in writing and send everything certified, You probably have no recourse at this point but that doesn't mean you can't minimize the damage, Lesson learned.
  12. I found this on the web, thought it might be timely since these CAs are getting more crafty: So... you've requested validation of a debt and the Collector has only sent you a screenshot of your name and some unrecogized amount due? And they say that's good enough, because Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo says so? Is that what's troubling you, Bucky? It really was a "nothing" of a case- an appeal over a billing dispute heard in the 4th US district court of Appeals. The amount of the debt itself was never in question in the Chaudhry case, the dispute was over additional charges for Attorney fees. The case decided that an Itemization of Attorney's fees was confidential, protected by Attorney-Client privilege, therefore in this case- not available to the debtor. Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the debt being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed. The debt collector is not required to keep or provide detailed evidence of the alleged debt. That's the snippet you'll find quoted to you by debt collectors. On it's face, it appears clear-cut. In context, it isn't applicable to everyday debt collection. Interestingly, it does appear to require that the information come directly from the Creditor: the debt being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed. Therefore, unless the documentation the CA provides has clearly originated with the original creditor, the Collector hasn't complied with their own supposed standard. Controlling Argument. Not a lesson from the Collector's Handbook, but a legal concept regarding applicability of case law. Chaudhry was decided in the 4th District Court of Appeals and holds no real weight outside of that district. Outside the 4'th, it is only useful as a Persuasive argument- meaning it can be introduced, but carries no absolute weight of precedent. In fact, introducing it outside of the 4th may be a bad idea entirely as judges can and do resent being told that they are expected to decide exactly as another judge (not their superiors- that is different!) have decided. Unless your case is exactly identical to Chaudhry- expect introducing the Chaudhry case to do nothing other than raise the judge's blood pressure. That's a good thing as it essentially precludes a CA from using Chaudhry to defend their lack of documentation validating a debt. Oh yeah? well..Take that then... Should the judge allow Chaudhry, you can produce your copy of Spears V. Brennan, which aside from being newer, directly contradicts Chaudhry: specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(. We cannot agree. The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spears’ loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments. Now we're reduced to a foreign decision standoff, with Chaudhry saying one thing, and Spears saying quite another. Result? Neither one trumps the other. The judge is going to decide based on other factors- and is probably slightly annoyed with the Collector for even bringing the Chaudhry case up. The Federal Trade Comission, the federal agency charged with maintainting and interpreting the FDCPA, has in past years issued opinion letters further clarifying the subject of debt validation. While these also carry no authoritative legal status, they may be useful as an additional persuasive argument for more thorough documentation. Because I said so, that's why. With Chaudhry out of the way, what then is sufficient validation? It's a fair assumption that the end of the line for debt collection is the courtroom. Because I said so (which includes affidavits of debt, a subject of an upcoming article) just doesn't cut it. The legal standard is "reasonable". Do the documents provided clearly and without doubt establish you as the debtor? Do they clearly show payments and charges leading up to the claimed amount? Does the collector have legal authority to accept payment on behalf of the original creditor? Are the documents believable? Provided by the OC, not created by the third-party collector? If a "reasonable" person -be it a judge, juror or mediator can answer "yes" to those questions based on the documents provided- you will likely be the proud owner of a new, shiny judgement! If not.... perhaps Mr. Chaudhry has some explaining to do
  13. That bill collector, he ain't no attorney.... Her's some info I found: So... you've requested validation of a debt and the Collector has only sent you a screenshot of your name and some unrecogized amount due? And they say that's good enough, because Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo says so? Is that what's troubling you, Bucky? It really was a "nothing" of a case- an appeal over a billing dispute heard in the 4th US district court of Appeals. The amount of the debt itself was never in question in the Chaudhry case, the dispute was over additional charges for Attorney fees. The case decided that an Itemization of Attorney's fees was confidential, protected by Attorney-Client privilege, therefore in this case- not available to the debtor. Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the debt being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed. The debt collector is not required to keep or provide detailed evidence of the alleged debt. That's the snippet you'll find quoted to you by debt collectors. On it's face, it appears clear-cut. In context, it isn't applicable to everyday debt collection. Interestingly, it does appear to require that the information come directly from the Creditor: the debt being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed. Therefore, unless the documentation the CA provides has clearly originated with the original creditor, the Collector hasn't complied with their own supposed standard. Controlling Argument. Not a lesson from the Collector's Handbook, but a legal concept regarding applicability of case law. Chaudhry was decided in the 4th District Court of Appeals and holds no real weight outside of that district. Outside the 4'th, it is only useful as a Persuasive argument- meaning it can be introduced, but carries no absolute weight of precedent. In fact, introducing it outside of the 4th may be a bad idea entirely as judges can and do resent being told that they are expected to decide exactly as another judge (not their superiors- that is different!) have decided. Unless your case is exactly identical to Chaudry- expect introducing the Chaudhry case to do nothing other than raise the judge's blood pressure. That's a good thing as it essentially precludes a CA from using Chaudhry to defend their lack of documentation validating a debt. Oh yeah? well..Take that then... Should the judge allow Chaudhry, you can produce your copy of Spears V. Brennan, which aside from being newer, directly contradicts Chaudhry: specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(. We cannot agree. The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spears’ loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments. Now we're reduced to a foreign decision standoff, with Chaudhry saying one thing, and Spears saying quite another. Result? Neither one trumps the other. The judge is going to decide based on other factors- and is probably slightly annoyed with the Collector for even bringing the Chaudhry case up. The Federal Trade Comission, the federal agency charged with maintainting and interpreting the FDCPA, has in past years issued opinion letters further clarifying the subject of debt validation. While these also carry no authoritative legal status, they may be useful as an additional persuasive argument for more thorough documentation. Because I said so, that's why. With Chaudhry out of the way, what then is sufficient validation? It's a fair assumption that the end of the line for debt collection is the courtroom. Because I said so (which includes affidavits of debt, a subject of an upcoming article) just doesn't cut it. The legal standard is "reasonable". Do the documents provided clearly and without doubt establish you as the debtor? Do they clearly show payments and charges leading up to the claimed amount? Does the collector have legal authority to accept payment on behalf of the original creditor? Are the documents believable? Provided by the OC, not created by the third-party collector? If a "reasonable" person -be it a judge, juror or mediator can answer "yes" to those questions based on the documents provided- you will likely be the proud owner of a new, shiny judgement! If not.... perhaps Mr. Chaudhry has some explaining to do.
  14. from their hind quarters. Filing suit would be you next step. The CA has already shown his hand and further chance of reasonableness from him is unlikely. You might save yourself the cost of a lawsuit by sending a "theaten lawsuit" letter by filling out the form for a small claims suit (obtained at your local county court house - State a minimum of $3000). Keep the response to the CA "all business", getting angry in the letter gets you nowhere (and this CA is smart enough to try to explot any weakness in your case). Good Hunting
  15. Have you DV the CA with a certifed letter? Have you a response? If you already paid the CA (I can't tell from you posting) did you get something in writing? If the CA can't be found contact the OC and get a phone and address (If they ask tell them your being audited by the IRS) Call CA ask for records and address (Talk about nothing more). If they have them, send certified letter for DV. If they don't, get the persons name and contact CRAs with that info and MOV. If the records have been tarnsferred to another creditor, repeat above paragragh. Basically you've got to find out who has the records and who is dinging your credit. Usually they're the same, but sometimes they're not.